DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States No. 20-1375 Supreme Court IofN T HEthe United States KRISTINA BOX, Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health, et al., Petitioners, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF INDIANA AND KENTUCKY, INC., Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS REGINA MAITLEN CATHERINE GLENN FOSTER P.O. Box 3696 STEVEN H. ADEN FPO, AP 96349 CLARKE D. FORSYTHE Counsel of Record KATIE GLENN NATALIE HEJRAN AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE 1150 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste. 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 [email protected] Tel: (202) 741-4919 Counsel for Amicus Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4 I. THE COURT SHOULD HEAR THIS CASE TO RESOLVE UNSETTLED LAW ............................. 4 A. THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE IS SETTLING THE LAW ............................. 6 B. THE COURT HAS LOOKED TO SEVERAL FACTORS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PRECEDENT IS SETTLED OR UNSETTLED ........................................ 9 II. BELLOTTI V. BAIRD IS UNSETTLED BY CONFLICTING PRECEDENTS ......................... 12 III. WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH UNSETTLED BELLOTTI AND CASEY ................................... 19 IV. WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH WAS UNSETTLED BY JUNE MEDICAL .................... 21 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 23 ii RELEVANT CASES PENDING IN FEDERAL COURTS .................................................................... 1a iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) A Woman’s Choice–E. Side Women’s Clinic v. Newman, 305 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2002) ............................. 18 Adams & Boyle, P.C. v. Slatery, No. 3:15-cv-00705 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 14, 2020) ................................................................... 22 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) ....................................... 8, 10 Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) ........................................... 11 Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass’n., 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019) ......................................... 7 Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) ........................................... 11 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) ........................................... 13 Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979) ................................... passim Bristol Reg’l Women’s Ctr., P.C. v. Slatery, No. 20-6267 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2021) ................. 22 iv Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ........................................... 11 Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977) ......................................... 8, 10 Cook v. Moffat, 46 U.S. 295 (1847) ............................................. 10 CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011) ............................................. 7 Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) ............................................. 8 District of Columbia v. Wesley, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) ......................................... 10 EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 978 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2020) ............................. 22 Fargo Women’s Health Organization v. Schafer, 507 U.S. 1013 (1993) ............................. 12, 16, 18 Fed. Election Comm’n v. Wisc. Right to Life, 551 US 449 (2007) ............................................... 7 Food & Drug Admin. v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, No. 20A34 (U.S. Jan. 12, 2021) ......................... 22 v Gamble v. United States 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019) ......................................... 8 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) ................................... passim Gordon v. Ogden, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 33 (1830) .................................. 10 Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461 (1993) ............................................. 8 Graves v. Schmidlapp, 315 U.S. 657 (1942) ........................................... 10 H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981) ............................. 4, 5, 13, 14 Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014) ............................................. 8 Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) ........................................... 7, 8 Heath v. Wallace, 138 U.S. 573 (1891) ........................................... 10 Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106 (1940) ........................................... 21 Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U.S. 205 (1910) ............................................. 7 vi Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) ............................... 14, 15, 16 Hopkins v. Jegley, 968 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2020) ............................. 22 Hopkins v. Jegley, No. 4:17-cv-00404-KGB (E.D. Ark. Dec. 22, 2020) ................................................................... 22 Janklow v. Planned Parenthood, 517 U.S. 1174 (1996) ......................................... 18 Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) ................................... 9, 11 Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) ......................................... 7 June Med. Servs. v. Phillips, No. 14-525-JWD-RLB (M.D. La. Jan. 28, 2021) ................................................................... 22 June Medical Services v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020) ............................... passim Kimble v. Marvel Ent., L.L.C, 135 S. Ct. 2401 (2015) ......................................... 8 Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292 (1997) ............................................. 4 vii Leal v. Azar, No. 2:20-CV-185-Z (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2020) ................................................................... 22 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007) ............................................. 8 Memphis Ctr. for Reprod. Health v. Slatery, No. 3:20-cv-00501 (M.D. Tenn. July 24, 2020) ................................................................... 22 Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009) ........................................... 11 Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) ........................................... 10 Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 278 (2d Cir. 2006) ............................... 17 Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994) ............................................. 9 Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) ................................... 4, 5, 15 Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (1989) ............................................. 8 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) ................................... 7, 9, 10 viii Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) ....................................... 9, 10 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ................................... passim Planned Parenthood v. Slatery, No. 3:20-cv-00740 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 26, 2021) ................................................................... 22 Planned Parenthood of Blue Ridge v. Camblos, 155 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 1998) ............................. 14 Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Fam. Plan. & Preventative Health Servs. v. Kauffman, 981 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2020) ............................. 22 Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky v. Box, 949 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2019) ....................... 4, 5, 6 Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Adams, 937 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2019) ............................... 5 Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Box, No. 17-2428, slip op. (7th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021) ......................................................... 2, 20, 22 Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Comm’r, Ind. State Dep’t of Health, 258 F. Supp. 3d 929 (S.D. Ind. 2017) ............ 2, 17 ix Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Kaul, No. 3:19-cv-00038-wmc (W.D. Wis. argued Dec. 14, 2020) ..................................................... 20 Planned Parenthood S. Atlantic v. Wilson, No. 3:21-00508-MGL (D.S.C. Mar. 19, 2021) ... 22 Preterm-Cleveland v. McCloud, No. 18-3329, slip op. (6th Cir. Apr. 13, 2021) ................................................. 10, 11, 16, 22 Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) ......................................... 7 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ......................................... 1, 2 Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) ............................................... 9 South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) ........................................... 10 Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) ................................... passim Thurlow v. Massachusetts, 46 U.S. 504 (1847) ............................................. 10 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) ..................................... 15, 18 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989) ........................................... 15 x Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-1630 (JEB) (D.D.C. Sept. 2, 2020) ........ 22 Whole Woman's Health All. v. Rokita, No. 1:18-cv-01904-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Feb. 19, 2021) ................................................................... 22 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) ............................... passim Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton, No. 17-51060, slip op. (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2020) ..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Look Into Healdsburg's Marshals and Nightwatchmen from 1867-1899
    1 A look into Healdsburg’s Marshals and Nightwatchmen From 1867-1899 Volume 1 2 Special Police Eldridge Boyd Ball Eldridge Boyd Ball was born in about 1844in Missouri to John W. Ball and Eliza Mary Miller. In 1852, he is found on the California State Census making his home in Solano County, California. On the 1st November 1864, he enlisted as a Private in Company F of the 7th California Infantry Regiment while living in Santa Rosa, California. On the 19th November 1865, he was discharged in San Francisco, California. In 1866, he is found on the Voter Register making his home in Mendocino Township, Sonoma County, California working as a Blacksmith. When the 1870 Census was taken he is making his home in Cache Creek, Yolo County, California working as a Junior Blacksmith. In 1871, he is found on the Voter Register making his home in Mendocino Township, Sonoma County, California working as a Blacksmith. In 1873, he is found on the Voter Register making his home in Spring Valley, Colusa County, California working as a Blacksmith. In 1878, he is found on the Voter Register making his home in Dayton, Butte County, California working as a Farmer. When the 1880 Census was taken he is making his home in Dayton, Butte County, California working as a Laborer. In 1882, he is found on the Voter Register making his home in San Francisco, San Francisco County, California working as a Blacksmith. In 1886, he is found on the Voter Register making his home in Vacaville, Solano County, California working as a Blacksmith.
    [Show full text]
  • 68Th EMMY® AWARDS NOMINATIONS for Programs Airing June 1, 2015 – May 31, 2016
    EMBARGOED UNTIL 8:40AM PT ON JULY 14, 2016 68th EMMY® AWARDS NOMINATIONS For Programs Airing June 1, 2015 – May 31, 2016 Los Angeles, CA, July 14, 2016– Nominations for the 68th Emmy® Awards were announced today by the Television Academy in a ceremony hosted by Television Academy Chairman and CEO Bruce Rosenblum along with Anthony Anderson from the ABC series black-ish and Lauren Graham from Parenthood and the upcoming Netflix revival, Gilmore Girls. "Television dominates the entertainment conversation and is enjoying the most spectacular run in its history with breakthrough creativity, emerging platforms and dynamic new opportunities for our industry's storytellers," said Rosenblum. “From favorites like Game of Thrones, Veep, and House of Cards to nominations newcomers like black-ish, Master of None, The Americans and Mr. Robot, television has never been more impactful in its storytelling, sheer breadth of series and quality of performances by an incredibly diverse array of talented performers. “The Television Academy is thrilled to once again honor the very best that television has to offer.” This year’s Drama and Comedy Series nominees include first-timers as well as returning programs to the Emmy competition: black-ish and Master of None are new in the Outstanding Comedy Series category, and Mr. Robot and The Americans in the Outstanding Drama Series competition. Additionally, both Veep and Game of Thrones return to vie for their second Emmy in Outstanding Comedy Series and Outstanding Drama Series respectively. While Game of Thrones again tallied the most nominations (23), limited series The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story and Fargo received 22 nominations and 18 nominations respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • 171 N.W.2D 837 (N.D
    N.D. Supreme Court Lembke v. Unke, 171 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1969) Filed Oct. 27, 1969 [Go to Documents] IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Caroline Lembke, and Jeanette Waxvik, Guardian ad litem of Kenneth Lembke and Gloria Lembke, Minors, Plaintiffs and Appellants in the District Court, Respondents in the Supreme Court v. Clara Unke, Elsie Stegman, Walter Lembke, Leonard Lembke, Gloria Lembke, Kenneth Lembke, Larry Lembke, Jerry Lembke, Louise Lembke, Rodney Lembke, Ronald Unke, Eileen Ferris, Wayne Stegman, Dwaine Lembke, Melvin Lembke, William Lembke, Odean Lembke, Dennis Lembke, and Raymond Lembke; and Harry Carlson, as Special Guardian of Gloria Lembke, Kenneth Lembke, Jerry Lembke, Louise Lembke, Odean Lembke, Dennis Lembke, Rodney Lembke, Wayne Stegman, William Lembke, and Raymond Lembke, Minors, Respondents in the Supreme Court, Defendants and Respondents in the District Court, Elsie Stegman, Walter Lembke, Leonard Lembke, and Clara Unke, individually and as Executrix of the Will of Louis Lembke, Deceased, Appellants in the Supreme Court. No. 8486 [171 N.W.2d 838] Syllabus of the Court 1. The common law is not immutable but flexible, and by its own principles adapts itself to varying conditions. 2. In a contest over the validity of a will in which the testamentary capacity of the testator is involved, the heirs who contest the will, as well as the one nominated as executor, may waive the physician-patient privilege insofar as the testimony of the physician relates to the mental capacity of the patient-testator. 3. Believing that the objective of N.D.C.C. § 31-01-06(3) is in no way thwarted by permitting those who stand in the place of or represent decedents to waive the privilege and that justice will be more apt to result from such waiver, because it will aid in reaching the truth as to the existence of testamentary capacity on the part of the patient, we hold that the trial court in the instant case was correct in permitting the attending physician to give his opinion concerning the mental capacity of the patient-testator.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SPECTRUM. Published by the Students of the North Dakota Agricultural College
    I THE SPECTRUM. Published by the Students of the North Dakota Agricultural College. Vol.,. VIII. MAY .15, 1904. No. 8. Gustavus Adolphus. ORATION WINNING FIRST PRIZE IN THE LOCAL CONTEST. During the last 2,300 years of the night Sun,"—from those same shores world's history, a great struggle has whence, centuries before, the sea kings been going on; a struggle as momentous had sallied forth to plunder the sunny as it has been extensive; as compre- shores of France and Italy—came a new hensive as the teachings of Christianity. Viking, not to rob and destroy, but to It had begun when, 2,201 years ago, in proclaim by his deeds the "brotherhood old Athens, Socrates drained the hemlock of man." He was as great a soldier as cup rather than retract his teachings. Napoleon; but Napoleon was spurred on It had grown broader and more fierce wholly by ambition, while this man when 463 years later Christian martyrs gained his victories for God and for his were burned as torches to illuminate fellow men. He was as great a states- Roman amphitheaters; and it reached its man as his contemporary, Richelieu; but climax, perhaps, in the first half of the Richelieu would not stop at deceit or seventeenth century. This struggle is crime to gain his ends, while this man the struggle for religious toleration. would risk his life and kingdom rather The human race, as a whole, is a con- than break his word. This man, soldier, servative body. It looks with suspicion statesman, Christian, was Gustavus upon any innovation, and the greater the Adolphus, the "Lion of the North." deviation from the broad beaten road In order fully to understand the char- of custom and tradition the greater the acter of this man, and to realize the opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Law School Record, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Winter 1957) Law School Record Editors
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound The nivU ersity of Chicago Law School Record Law School Publications Winter 1-1-1957 Law School Record, vol. 6, no. 1 (Winter 1957) Law School Record Editors Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/lawschoolrecord Recommended Citation Law School Record Editors, "Law School Record, vol. 6, no. 1 (Winter 1957)" (1957). The University of Chicago Law School Record. Book 17. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/lawschoolrecord/17 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Publications at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in The University of Chicago Law School Record by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Volume 6 Number 1 der control. With this went an extraordinarily warm heart, great kindliness, and lively sympathy always for the poor, the friendless, and the oppressed. His wit was quick and keen and occasionally a bit caustic, his mind alert, his judg­ ment excellent. He carrie to Chicago in 1874 and for many years there­ after was continuously in the trial of jury cases, literally going from one courtroom to another, day after day. He was a fmn believer in trial by jury as one of the great bul­ warks of our liberties; but he also thought that in civil cases trial by jury as at common law should be restored; that judges should be permitted to charge juries orally, without written instructions, and to comment on the facts. He once said he thought he had tried five or six hundred jury cases, perhaps more, though in the last fifteen years or so of his life most of his cases came from other and Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Determining Diversity Jurisdiction of National Banks After Wachovia Bank V
    Fordham Law Review Volume 81 Issue 3 Article 6 2012 Determining Diversity Jurisdiction of National Banks After Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt Michael Podolsky Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Podolsky, Determining Diversity Jurisdiction of National Banks After Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 1447 (2013). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol81/iss3/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DETERMINING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL BANKS AFTER WACHOVIA BANK V. SCHMIDT Michael Podolsky* Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, some courts held, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, that national banks were citizens of each and every state in which they had a branch. In Schmidt, the Supreme Court made it clear that this approach was incorrect, but failed to provide an alternative one. Not surprisingly, in the wake of that decision another court split developed. While some courts have found that national banks are citizens only of the state listed on their charters as their main office, others have found that national banks are also citizens of the state that is their principal place of business. This Note contends that congressional intent and equitable considerations mandate that national banks be considered citizens of both the state listed on their charter as their main office and the state that is their principal place of business.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Loan Was Made by Option One Mortgage Company and Later Assigned to Wells Fargo
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA : N.A., as Trustee, : : Appellant : : v. : Civil No. 3:03CV1591(MRK) : PATRICIA ANN GUARNIERI, : : Appellee : RULING ON APPEAL FROM BANKRUPTCY COURT This is an appeal [doc. #1] from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut (Weil, B.J.) sustaining the debtor Patricia Ann Guarnieri's objection to a mortgage lender's claim for post-acceleration, pre-petition late charges in the context of a "cure and maintenance" of the debt under §1322(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5). In re Guarnieri, 297 B.R. 365 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2003). The Court AFFIRMS. I. The facts are set forth in greater detail in Judge Weil's opinion, familiarity with which is assumed. Briefly stated, in February 2000, appellant Wells Fargo loaned Ms. Guarnieri $101,000 pursuant to an adjustable rate note (the "Note") and secured the Note with a mortgage (the "Mortgage") on Ms. Guarnieri's residence in West Haven, Connecticut.1 When Ms. Guarnieri 1 The loan was made by Option One Mortgage Company and later assigned to Wells Fargo. See Guarnieri, 297 B.R. at 366. 1 defaulted on the Note by failing to make certain payments, Wells Fargo accelerated all of the payments owing under the Note and began a mortgage foreclosure action in the Connecticut Superior Court. The Superior Court entered judgment of strict foreclosure, finding the debt owed to be $104,588.06 and setting a law date of December 2, 2002. See id.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Amici Curiae of Emory Outlaw and Emory Latin
    NO. 11-345 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _____________ ABIGAIL NOEL FISHER, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, ET AL., Respondents. _____________ On Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit _____________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE EMORY OUTLAW AND EMORY LATIN AMERICAN LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS _____________ SARAH M. SHALF Counsel of Record EMORY LAW SCHOOL SUPREME COURT ADVOCACY PROJECT 1301 Clifton Road Atlanta, Georgia 30322-2770 (404) 712-4652 [email protected] (i) QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does the use of race in admissions at a public university further a compelling governmental interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body? (ii) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................ 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................ 3 I. DIVERSITY IN THE CLASSROOM IS A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST ............................................. 3 A. Diversity in the Classroom Increases the Number of Perspectives Available to Students ....................................... 3 B. Diversity in the Classroom Prepares Students to Effectively Contribute to an Increasingly Diverse and Globalized Workforce ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Governor of Utah, 1885
    University of Oklahoma College of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 10-17-1885 Report of the Governor of Utah, 1885 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/indianserialset Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation H.R. Exec. Doc. No. 1, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1885) This House Executive Document is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 by an authorized administrator of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REPORT OF THE GOVERNOR OF UTAH.- TERRITORY OF UTAH, EXECU'l'IVE OFFICE, Salt Lake City, October 17, 1885. Sm: The past year may very properly be said to have been the most eventful one in th~ history of the 'l'erritory of Utah. The execution of national law, in the face of a bitter opposition upon tbe part of those who assume temporal as well as ecclesiastical control, over the great majority of thn people has been successful ~o a degree which by many heretofore was regarded as impossible. A crisis is now at hand, which must have-one of two results. The Government either must yield its claim for continued suprenrncy over one of its Territories, permit its power to he broken, and the laws nullified, or there must be a surren­ der to the rightful authority of the Government upon the part of the majority of the people.
    [Show full text]
  • Armored Car” Cases
    November 10, 1977 77-64 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANTITRUST DIVISION Participation of Antitrust Division Attorney in “Armored Car” Cases This is in response to your request for the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel on whether there would be any conflict of interest involved in the assignment of a named (Mr. G) attorney in your Division to work on several antitrust matters involving armored car companies, apparently including Wells Fargo. Two of the matters are criminal antitrust cases, one is a civil case, and the fourth is a grand jury investigation. We see no objection to Mr. G’s participation. It appears that Mr. G was formerly an associate with a law firm from September 1974 through March 1977, and that the law firm was previ­ ously general counsel for Wells Fargo, but that he “never had any occasion to work on or indeed, to be made aware of any matter in any way connected with the firm’s representation of Wells Fargo.” Wells Fargo took the position that in view of the law firm’s prior position as a general counsel for Wells Fargo, no member of the firm could properly be involved in the representation of any company or individu­ al called before any grand jury investigating possible violations in the armored car industry. The law firm ultimately acquiesced in this view. However, apparently before the law firm had agreed to decline all representation of companies or individuals connected with the grand jury investigation, a member of the law firm was contacted concerning the possibility of his representing an individual who had been subpoe­ naed before the armored car grand jury.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Press Release Award Year: 2016
    Nomination Press Release Award Year: 2016 Outstanding Character Voice-Over Performance Family Guy • Pilling Them Softly • FOX • 20th Century Fox Television Seth MacFarlane as Peter Griffin, Stewie Griffin, Brian Griffin, Glenn Quagmire, Dr. Hartman, Tom Tucker, Mr. Spacely South Park • Stunning and Brave • Comedy Central • Central Productions Trey Parker as PC Principal, Cartman South Park • Tweek x Craig • Comedy Central • Central Productions Matt Stone as Craig Tucker, Tweek, Thomas Tucker SuperMansion • Puss in Books • Crackle • Stoopid Buddy Stoodios Keegan-Michael Key as American Ranger, Sgt. Agony SuperMansion • The Inconceivable Escape of Dr. Devizo • Crackle • Stoopid Buddy Stoodios Chris Pine as Dr. Devizo, Robo-Dino Outstanding Animated Program Archer • The Figgis Agency • FX Networks • FX Studios Bob's Burgers • The Horse Rider-er • FOX • Bento Box Entertainment Phineas and Ferb Last Day of Summer • Disney XD • Disney Television Animation The Simpsons • Halloween of Horror • FOX • Gracie Films in association with 20th Century Fox Television South Park • You're Not Yelping • Comedy Central • Central Productions Outstanding Short Form Animated Program Adventure Time • Hall of Egress • Cartoon Network • Cartoon Network Studios The Powerpuff Girls • Once Upon A Townsville • Cartoon Network • Cartoon Network Studios Robot Chicken • Robot Chicken Christmas Special: The X-Mas United • Adult Swim • Stoopid Buddy Stoodios SpongeBob SquarePants • Company Picnic • Nickelodeon • Nickelodeon Steven Universe • The Answer • Cartoon Network
    [Show full text]
  • First Do No Harm: the Problem of Spyware, Crawford
    FIRST DO NO HARM: THE PROBLEM OF SPYWARE By Susan P. Crawford† TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1433 II. THE LEGISLATIVE LANDSCAPE............................................................................. 1437 A. The Initial Utah State Statute: The Spyware Control Act ........................... 1438 B. Other State Bills .......................................................................................... 1441 1. Bad Acts ............................................................................................... 1441 2. Trademark Concerns............................................................................ 1441 3. Notice Concerns................................................................................... 1442 C. Overarching Commerce Clause Issues with Pending State Bills ................ 1443 D. Federal Bills ................................................................................................ 1445 1. SPY ACT............................................................................................... 1445 2. I-SPY ACT of 2005............................................................................... 1448 3. SPY BLOCK Act................................................................................... 1448 E. Implications of Pending Legislation............................................................ 1450 1. Implication One: Design Mandates ....................................................
    [Show full text]